On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 01:14:27PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Sun, Dec 03, 2023 at 11:32:46AM -0800, Yury Norov wrote: > > The function traverses bitmap with for_each_clear_bit() just to allocate > > a bit atomically. We can do it better with a dedicated find_and_set_bit(). > > No objection from me, but please tweak the subject line to match > previous hv history, i.e., capitalize the first word after the prefix: > > PCI: hv: Use atomic find_and_set_bit() > > I think there's value in using similar phrasing across the whole > series. Some subjects say "optimize xyz()", some say "rework xyz()", > some "rework xyz()", etc. I think it's more informative to include > the "atomic" and "find_bit()" ideas in the subject than the specific > functions that *use* it. > > I also like how some of the other commit logs clearly say what the > patch does, e.g., "Simplify by using dedicated find_and_set_bit()", as > opposed to just "We can do it better ..." which technically doesn't > say what the patch does. > > Very nice simplification in all these users, thanks for doing it! > > I assume you'll merge these all together since they depend on [01/35], > so: > > Acked-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> Thank you Bjorn! Now as many people asked to move their subsystems patch together with #1, I think, if no objections, it's simpler to pull all the series in bitmap-for-next. I'm going to align commit messages wording, as you suggested, address some other comments, and will send v3 this weekend. Thanks, Yury
